The Politics Of Counting

In March, a month famous for its gray skies and blustery winds, census officials will be feeling an unseasonable
swelter.

That's when the U.S. Census Bureau will fully swing into action - as it does at the beginning of each new decade - attacking the constitutionally-mandated chore of counting "We, the People."

It's a job that has grown geometrically since federal marshals on horseback, working under the supervision of Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, first counted roughly 3 million heads in 1790. This year, a quarter-million people will work the census.

To be sure, no amount of men on horseback would suffice to produce a successful census today. That's not only because the population has grown by a factor of 100 since the days of the Continental Congress, but also because of the law and politics surrounding the 2000 census.

In interviews with CBSNews.com's Pete Brush, U.S. Census Bureau spokesman Marshall Turner described the chore in the year 2000 as "Herculean," while politicians and officials familiar with the issue characterized the political and monetary stakes as extraordinarily high.

Gerry Cohen, who advises the North Carolina state government on census and redistricting issues, says it's a critical process, even if it's mostly political insiders who are paying attention.

Cohen - and others like him - are on the spot in all 50 states during the decennial counting season, because state governments are responsible for making sure tallies are fairly reflected in political boundaries.

Cohen's state - famous for its long, skinny 12th congressional district - is walking a fine line between the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the upshot of which was that racial minorities must be fairly represented, and last year's Supreme Court decision, which said that drawing congressional districts is not legal if the district is drawn solely on the basis of race.

"It's a very contentious process," says Cohen. Courts have forced North Carolina to redraw its 12th district, which runs along the predominately black Interstate-85 corridor, four times since 1992.

By law, oceans of socioeconomic data must be divided into different categories across 7 million parcels of land called "census blocks." Adding to the complexity of the task is the interplay between preserving voting rights and avoiding racial gerrymandering.

Currently, the solution has manifested itself in a bifurcated system. Two sets of data - one enhanced with statistical sampling and one without - are now de rigueur.

The double dataset will not only decide how many representatives go to Congress from each state, it will also help states draw political boundaries: invisible filaments of influence, which have the potential to literally make or break a politician's career.

Census officials, though aware of the sensitivity and imprt of their work, are careful not to make explicit political judgements. However, as part of the executive branch, the Census Bureau is run by political appointees and tends to reflect the policies of the current presidential administration.

Irene and Stanton Katchatag of Unalakleet, Alaska, were the first persons counted in the 2000 censusSIZE>

Turner is by no means alone. According to the preponderance of expert opinion, there is plenty of room for improvement. Numerous groups have studied the matter for decades, and most agree that sampling would be a path toward a more accurate count. The Clinton administration, aware of the findings, has pushed for better counting methods.

"There are a number of statistics from the last census that indicate that about 8.5 million Americans were not counted, another 4 million Americans were double-counted," presidential spokesman Joe Lockhart said at a February briefing.

Poor whites in Appalachia, blacks and Latinos in inner cities, migrant workers and disgruntled survivalists are just some of the groups whose presence is not fully reflected in census counts. It's a long-standing aphorism, for example, that there's an extra congressman somewhere in Appalachia who will never go to Washington because his would-be constituents don't officially exist.

Rep. Carrie P. Meek, D-Fla., who advises the Congressional Black Caucus on census matters, also understands the direct financial cost of not counting people. Minorities in her South Florida district are hurt when they are undercounted, she says.

"An accurate census means millions of dollars for our community," she says. "In 1990, more than 74,206 Miami-Dade County residents were not counted, costing our community tens of millions in lost federal funds."

Statisticians agree that the undercounting and double-counting harms the integrity of the census data. They also agree that sampling cuts down on the error (not to mention the cost) of the head count.

But this is where the political fireworks start. Many officials chafe at the notion of adding "virtual people" to a process as critical as redrawing the boundaries that can make or break political careers.

Rep. Dan Miller, R-Fla., who chairs the House Census subcommittee, told CBSNews.com that he regards the use of sampling as "illegal and unconstitutional."

A constitutional purist, Miller says that the Founding Fathers called for an "enumeration" because they specifically wanted a head count - not an estimate.

"It's very clear that you have to count real peope," says Miller, a statistician by training who first went to Congress in 1992.

Ironically, says Miller, for the foreseeable future it looks like the big winners in the battle over whether to use sampling will be the trial lawyers.

"The confusion of having a two-number census is going to be amazing," says Miller. "This is going to be a lawyer's dream and that's the sad legacy of the census. The whole process will get tied up … in the courts."

Few officials disagree with Miller's prediction.

One thing is clear: Census counters may be on the hot seat this spring, but next year, when sampling data is released, the politics of counting will reach a fever pitch.